Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[Skeptical Greg]

Anyone else think this thread served its purpose?

.

Yes.
However I am looking for some more Bigfoot footprints, and I hope to have something
soon, to test our experts..

I think the problem, as shown with Dfoot’s experiments; is that if you clarify up front,
that you know for a fact, the prints were NOT made by a Bigfoot, then you will hear all
kinds of expert analysis by the footers how they can tell they are fake.

On the other hand ( and this can be clearly seen over at BFF ), if you throw a print out
and say “ What do you guys think ? “, there will be an endless discussion about how it
COULD be a real Bigfoot print…

Feel free to substitute print for:

Blobsquatch

Vocalization

tree knock

rock throw

etc., etc..

While we are at it, I wanted to bring up the Elk lay again, and a question that Lu refused to address..

It goes back to the claim that elks leave prints in the body of a lay, when they stand up..

Here is a post Lu made, quoting Caddy about how they ruled out elk..

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1409713#post1409713

As far as the elk is concerned - elk always leave prints in the center of bedding areas when they get up. We've got lots of video and still imagery to back that up, as well as photos of eld beds in mud and snow. All of them have tracks in the center grouped closely pointed the same direction.

Here is the photo ( again ) of what Caddy offered as a photo of a REAL elk lay..

Note: There is only one discernable hoof print in the body of the lay, and it is going the wrong way.

One has to wonder, if they have lots of imagery to back them up, why Caddy offers an
image that doesn’t back them up?

Lu ends the post with:

He gave me permission to repost the pertinent eight paragraphs and wants to know what happens. Should I tell him, "Nothing"?

Well, we have given you lots to report back..

Why don't you tell him you didn't like the answers we gave, so you put us on ignore, instead of getting back to him...

 

[desertyeti]

As far as the elk is concerned - elk always leave prints in the center of bedding areas when they get up. We've got lots of video and still imagery to back that up, as well as photos of eld beds in mud and snow. All of them have tracks in the center grouped closely pointed the same direction.

Absolute b.s.
Caddy is wrong, and either ignorant or outright mis-stating facts. It's that simple.

As I've noted many times, and as anyone who has a copy of Mark Elbroch's book (which is in color, contrary to what Rick Noll and Lu have claimed in the past ), or as anyone who has spent any time looking at animal tracks and sign knows:

ungulate (elk, deer, sheep, goats, antelope, etc.) lays don't necessarily have hoofprints in the body impression from when the animal stands. The legs can be outside the body imprint, inside the body imprint, or not registered at all (depending on the substrate).

As an aside, it's absolutely comical that the BF crowd gets all upset (rightly so) when anyone says that anything is always or never. Yet, there they are boldly assering that elk always leave hoofprints.

The whole Skookum Elk Cast claim boils down to this:
"Sure, it looks like an elk in all the particulars, from the contours of the thigh and metatarsals, to the curvature of the ilium and spine, down to the hariflow pattern on all the parts of the imprint. Heck, it even has hoofprints leading up to it and walking away from it. BUT, since someone claimed to see "dermals" on the wrist, and since I don't see a hoofprint where I expect to see one, it's clearly a hominid print."
Hey, with logic like that, who can argue?

 

[LAL]

Anyone else think this thread served its purpose?
(Namely demonstrating that footprint data alone simply aren't sufficient to prove whether or not an undocumented, unprecedented, animal species lives in an area).

Yep. I tried using the DY/tube methods of determining fakes. Screwed me up didn't it? I might have done better using "common sense". Seems to me there was a bit of misdirection too.

I do know what to look for in bear tracks.

How did the sceptics do?

BTW, I just got an older copy of The Apes Among Us from the library, and the color photo of a three-toed track isn't in there either. So where is the photo from?

 

[LAL]

As I've noted many times, and as anyone who has a copy of Mark Elbroch's book (which is in color, contrary to what Rick Noll and Lu have claimed in the past ), or as anyone who has spent any time looking at animal tracks and sign knows:

Why are you including me in that? I've never seen the book.

 

[kitakaze]

Yes, its possible. But how plausible it is?
Think on the statistical meaning of the word "probability". "Possible" includes several level of "probability". Sometimes the probability is very, very low...

Nope, unfortunately we can not quantify the probablity in this case. All we can do is qualify it.

Oh now you've done it, Correa. I suggest we refer to 'possibility', 'probability', and 'plausibility' as the C3-PO's in light of the incessant quibbling it always elicits here.

Come on Threepio, give us the bigfoot odds, no wookie bias.

 

[kitakaze]

Checking eastern reports, I noticed they tnd to be few and far between, even though those big pins make them look numerous.

What are we supposed to infer from this display that somehow supports BF?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Oh now you've done it, Correa. I suggest we refer to 'possibility', 'probability', and 'plausibility' as the C3-PO's in light of the incessant quibbling it always elicits here.

Come on Threepio, give us the bigfoot odds, no wookie bias.

I only listen to odds from Spock ....


Anything is possible.. ' Probable ' belongs to a much smaller set ...

 

[desertyeti]

I think the problem, as shown with Dfoot’s experiments; is that if you clarify up front,
that you know for a fact, the prints were NOT made by a Bigfoot, then you will hear all
kinds of expert analysis by the footers how they can tell they are fake.

On the other hand ( and this can be clearly seen over at BFF ), if you throw a print out
and say “ What do you guys think ? “, there will be an endless discussion about how it
COULD be a real Bigfoot print…

Yep, we're seeing that here with the BF-fans already claiming they were somehow tricked, even though I implied nothing about whether the prints were real or fake. I simlpy asked which looked real and which looked fake and why. There's no honest discussion to be had with people like that. It's all the "Yes, but..." game.

They keep trying to cover up a complete lack of actual, testable data with semantic games, appeals to the hypothetical, and constant cries of being a victim. And yet, still no clear, definitive BF photos, videos, or body. When their constant special pleading falls on deaf ears, they simply go on the offensive and claim that everyone's ignoring the volumes of data that they claim to have.

 

[LAL]

Yep, we're seeing that here with the BF-fans already claiming they were somehow tricked, even though I implied nothing about whether the prints were real or fake. I simlpy asked which looked real and which looked fake and why. There's no honest discussion to be had with people like that. It's all the "Yes, but..." game.

Actually, I was interested in my own preconceptions about the test. I was also sick in bed and didn't really feel like playing. Huntster had it right.

I notice I did your bidding, but you won't do mine. If you don't know the source of your 3-toed photo, just say so. It's in none of my books.

 

[LAL]

Maps, as promised:

 

[SweatyYeti]

desertyeti wrote:

And yet, still no clear, definitive BF photos, videos, or body.

How observant you are, DY. We don't have proof of Bigfoot yet.

But fortunately we have plenty of evidence for the Big Guy.

I was strongly impressed by Joyce's phone call, from out-of-state....just to tell me about her Bigfoot sighting.
I simply cannot understand why she would decide to pick-up the phone and make a long-distance call....just to LIE to a total stranger.

It doesn't make any sense to me.
What does make sense is that she saw a real live, walking, breathing human-like creature in the wild...with BIG feet ....and was so impressed and amazed by it, that she simply wanted to share the experience with someone......someone who she knew was also a believer.

THAT makes sense.


Also....Correa.....can you explain what "reliable evidence" is, please?

Perhaps you used the term without any idea of what it means......in which case what you said has NO meaning whatsoever.

desertyeti tried to draw a distinction between "verified evidence" and "proof"....and could not explain what that difference actually is.
I'd love to know exactly what it is, DY.
If you could explain it...It would be appreciated.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I simply cannot understand why she would decide to pick-up the phone and make a long-distance call....just to LIE to a total stranger.

It doesn't make any sense to me.

Doesn't make sense to me either ...

Also....Correa.....can you explain what "reliable evidence" is, please?

May I try ?

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reliable
Main Entry: 1re·li·able

Function: adjective
1 : suitable or fit to be relied on : DEPENDABLE
2 : giving the same result on successive trials


I particularly like # 2 ...

 

[kitakaze]

desertyeti wrote:

How observant you are, DY. We don't have proof of Bigfoot yet.

But fortunately we have plenty of evidence for the Big Guy.

Unfortunately you have plenty of poor evidence, unsubstantial evidence.

I was strongly impressed by Joyce's phone call, from out-of-state....just to tell me about her Bigfoot sighting.
I simply cannot understand why she would decide to pick-up the phone and make a long-distance call....just to LIE to a total stranger.

It doesn't make any sense to me.
What does make sense is that she saw a real live, walking, breathing human-like creature in the wild...with BIG feet ....and was so impressed and amazed by it, that she simply wanted to share the experience with someone......someone who she knew was also a believer.

THAT makes sense.

The only thing your anecdote is evidence of is extremely lacking reasoning skills and a fine illustration of how little your belief requires.

Also....Correa.....can you explain what "reliable evidence" is, please?

Perhaps you used the term without any idea of what it means......in which case what you said has NO meaning whatsoever.

Perhaps you are a very gullible person who needs little more than flimsy evidence and baseless speculation to elicit your belief and can do little more than quibble semantics to defend them. We've seen far stronger evidence of this than any supporting bigfoot.

 

[LAL]

THAT makes sense.

It just occured to me, there are dragon legends in China and Britain (the British imported them from China and adapted them), but not in NA, despite the dinosaur fossils here. I can't think of any legendary, mythological animal that's made it all around the globe.

Why bipedal hominids?

Why don't we have the legends in places they couldn't have reached, or in areas (in Na, at least) where the annual precipitation is under 20"?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

....

Why don't we have the legends in places they couldn't have reached, or in areas (in Na, at least) where the annual precipitation is under 20"?

You mean like ( west ) Texas ? Arizona ? New Mexico ? California ?


You ask such a question right after posting that map ?


And you don't understand why you are accused of being obtuse.....

 

[kitakaze]

It just occured to me, there are dragon legends in China and Britain (the British imported them from China and adapted them), but not in NA, despite the dinosaur fossils here. I can't think of any legendary, mythological animal that's made it all around the globe

Quetzalcoatl.

Why bipedal hominids?

Hmmm, yes. Why something humaniform?

Why don't we have the legends in places they couldn't have reached, or in areas (in Na, at least) where the annual precipitation is under 20"?

You mean there are no desert yetis!?

 

[kitakaze]

DP.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

The only thing your anecdote is evidence of is extremely lacking reasoning skills and a fine illustration of how little your belief requires.

Actually, kitakaze...it's evidence that favors "a real Bigfoot sighting" as the true explanation for Joyce's phone call.
Simply because that explanation makes more sense.

Have you...or Correa...ever called a total stranger who lives in another state for NO REASON other than to tell them a pack of lies?

Answer........No, you haven't.

Do you know anyone who has done that?

Answer..........No....you don't.

Will kitakaze refute my answers?

No.....he won't. Because he can't.

As a rule....grown, mature adults don't do that...because it's a senseless and twisted thing to do.
That's why Joyce's story being the TRUTH makes more sense than it being a total lie.

kitakaze can call the evidence...Joyce's sighting report and her phone call to me.... "flimsy".....but what neither HE nor any other skeptic can do is back that claim up by giving an actual example of someone making a long-distance phone call to a stranger simply to tell them lies.

This would be flimsy, meaningless evidence if people commonly did that......but they don't.

So, again, kitakaze says things that he cannot back-up.
But go ahead, kit....feel free to provide examples, and prove me wrong.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Diogenes wrote:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

I simply cannot understand why she would decide to pick-up the phone and make a long-distance call....just to LIE to a total stranger.

It doesn't make any sense to me.

Doesn't make sense to me either ...

Thanks for agreeing with me, Greg.
You're right....that explanation does NOT make any sense.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Diogenes wrote:

May I try ?

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reliable
Main Entry: 1re·li·able

Function: adjective
1 : suitable or fit to be relied on : DEPENDABLE
2 : giving the same result on successive trials

I particularly like # 2 ...

Great definition, Greg. I like number two, too.

So....how does "giving the same result on successive trials" translate to Bigfoot evidence? Any idea?

How do we put sighting reports "on trial"?

Note: This is Diogenes' weak point.......elaborating on something.